Long article, small excerpt below
272 Slaves Were Sold to Save Georgetown. What Does It Owe Their Descendants?
In 1838, the Jesuit priests who ran the country's top Catholic university needed money to keep it alive. Now comes the task of making amends.
April 17, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/us/georgetown-university-search-for-slave-descendants.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0
The human cargo was loaded on ships at a bustling wharf in the nation's capital, destined for the plantations of the Deep South. Some slaves pleaded for rosaries as they were rounded up, praying for deliverance.
But on this day, in the fall of 1838, no one was spared: not the 2-month-old baby and her mother, not the field hands, not the shoemaker and not Cornelius Hawkins, who was about 13 years old when he was forced onboard.
Their panic and desperation would be mostly forgotten for more than a century. But this was no ordinary slave sale. The enslaved African-Americans had belonged to the nation's most prominent Jesuit priests. And they were sold, along with scores of others, to help secure the future of the premier Catholic institution of higher learning at the time, known today as Georgetown University.
Now, with racial protests roiling college campuses, an unusual collection of Georgetown professors, students, alumni and genealogists is trying to find out what happened to those 272 men, women and children. And they are confronting a particularly wrenching question: What, if anything, is owed to the descendants of slaves who were sold to help ensure the college's survival?
More than a dozen universities — including Brown, Columbia, Harvard and the University of Virginia — have publicly recognized their ties to slavery and the slave trade. But the 1838 slave sale organized by the Jesuits, who founded and ran Georgetown, stands out for its sheer size, historians say.
At Georgetown, slavery and scholarship were inextricably linked. The college relied on Jesuit plantations in Maryland to help finance its operations, university officials say. (Slaves were often donated by prosperous parishioners.) And the 1838 sale — worth about $3.3 million in today's dollars — was organized by two of Georgetown's early presidents, both Jesuit priests.
The students organized a protest and a sit-in, using the hashtag #GU272 for the slaves who were sold. In November, the university agreed to remove the names of the Rev. Thomas F. Mulledy and the Rev. William McSherry, the college presidents involved in the sale, from two campus buildings.
Quote from: Heisenberg on April 16, 2016, 11:07:11 AM
Long article, small excerpt below
272 Slaves Were Sold to Save Georgetown. What Does It Owe Their Descendants?
In 1838, the Jesuit priests who ran the country's top Catholic university needed money to keep it alive. Now comes the task of making amends.
April 17, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/us/georgetown-university-search-for-slave-descendants.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0
The human cargo was loaded on ships at a bustling wharf in the nation's capital, destined for the plantations of the Deep South. Some slaves pleaded for rosaries as they were rounded up, praying for deliverance.
But on this day, in the fall of 1838, no one was spared: not the 2-month-old baby and her mother, not the field hands, not the shoemaker and not Cornelius Hawkins, who was about 13 years old when he was forced onboard.
Their panic and desperation would be mostly forgotten for more than a century. But this was no ordinary slave sale. The enslaved African-Americans had belonged to the nation's most prominent Jesuit priests. And they were sold, along with scores of others, to help secure the future of the premier Catholic institution of higher learning at the time, known today as Georgetown University.
Now, with racial protests roiling college campuses, an unusual collection of Georgetown professors, students, alumni and genealogists is trying to find out what happened to those 272 men, women and children. And they are confronting a particularly wrenching question: What, if anything, is owed to the descendants of slaves who were sold to help ensure the college's survival?
More than a dozen universities — including Brown, Columbia, Harvard and the University of Virginia — have publicly recognized their ties to slavery and the slave trade. But the 1838 slave sale organized by the Jesuits, who founded and ran Georgetown, stands out for its sheer size, historians say.
At Georgetown, slavery and scholarship were inextricably linked. The college relied on Jesuit plantations in Maryland to help finance its operations, university officials say. (Slaves were often donated by prosperous parishioners.) And the 1838 sale — worth about $3.3 million in today's dollars — was organized by two of Georgetown's early presidents, both Jesuit priests.
The students organized a protest and a sit-in, using the hashtag #GU272 for the slaves who were sold. In November, the university agreed to remove the names of the Rev. Thomas F. Mulledy and the Rev. William McSherry, the college presidents involved in the sale, from two campus buildings.
I blame Pilarz....
"Get that man a sonnet!"
Fascinating story. Interesting to see how Georgetown reacts to this.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 17, 2016, 08:57:22 AM
Fascinating story. Interesting to see how Georgetown reacts to this.
I don't see any reason for GU to say anything. It is a part of their history.
Should Marquette change its name? After all, Fr Marquette was an instrument in France's Mission Civilisatrice. Some believe, with reason, that European colonization employed conversion to Christianity as a mechanism for subjugating native populations.
One of my colleagues is a Tulalip who had served in the Obama Administration as the Senior Policy Advisor to the Sec of Interior for Natural Resource Management. She is a sophisticated, discerning individual. She knows I am active in my Anglican parish but has said that, like most of the leadership of Indian Country, she has an inherent distrust of all religion because of history.
Fr Marquette was an instrument in the expansion of New France. The French policy of Mission Civilisatrice was effectively cultural genocide. Should Marquette change its name because of that legacy?
Can always rename ourselves as The Non-Public University of Wisconsin, if The Marquette name and Catholicism become too politically correct.
so who is responsible for the $$ for amends? the students? what good do $$amends do at this point anyway-i know, stupid question, but really? what kinds of suffering have today's african-americans gone thru as a result of some people's actions over 100 years ago? it was a wrong that has been righted...sorry, it won't happen again. end of story. the AA's are desperately trying to exploit the $$ angle-surprise? and who will be in charge of this? are sharpton and jackson going to arm wrestle for it? oh, and what is the price tag?
Quote from: Badgerhater on April 17, 2016, 12:05:37 PM
Can always rename ourselves as The Non-Public University of Wisconsin, if The Marquette name and Catholicism become too politically correct.
Army
Don't get me wrong - I love the Marquette name and embrace honoring a good man who dedicated his life to the earnest service of his faith.
Some people think that the Christian missionaries were evil, corrupt, or just unwitting pawns in a grand political game.
My point is that we cannot erase history and there is no need for contemporary anguish over events from the distant past.
George Washington owned slaves. Should we eliminate him from the history of this nation for that fact?
Quote from: keefe on April 17, 2016, 11:58:07 AM
I don't see any reason for GU to say anything. It is a part of their history.
Should Marquette change its name? After all, Fr Marquette was an instrument in France's Mission Civilisatrice. Some believe, with reason, that European colonization employed conversion to Christianity as a mechanism for subjugating native populations.
One of my colleagues is a Tulalip who had served in the Obama Administration as the Senior Policy Advisor to the Sec of Interior for Natural Resource Management. She is a sophisticated, discerning individual. She knows I am active in my Anglican parish but has said that, like most of the leadership of Indian Country, she has an inherent distrust of all religion because of history.
Fr Marquette was an instrument in the expansion of New France. The French policy of Mission Civilisatrice was effectively cultural genocide. Should Marquette change its name because of that legacy?
If you have read any scholarly biographies of Father Marquette, you would know that he did not give a rat's ass about politics, and actually saved many Native American lives by protecting peaceful tribes from the warrior tribes (now there is some irony for you) and convinced many of these aggressive groups to give up their murderous and even cannibalistic ways. If France used his actions to further their own less-than-honorable goals, that does not diminish Father Marquette's accomplishments as a peacemaker and spreader of Christian Faith.
Quote from: keefe on April 17, 2016, 12:34:08 PM
Army
Don't get me wrong - I love the Marquette name and embrace honoring a good man who dedicated his life to the earnest service of his faith.
Some people think that the Christian missionaries were evil, corrupt, or just unwitting pawns in a grand political game.
My point is that we cannot erase history and there is no need for contemporary anguish over events from the distant past.
George Washington owned slaves. Should we eliminate him from the history of this nation for that fact?
I don't think anyone's proposing erasing history. If anything, this is recognizing history more in the Georgetown situation. They took the names of the two priests off a building. I think that's a good step. Why continue to honor them?
The student movement this fall that got the buildings renamed also called for GTown to use the NPV of the slave sale to establish an endowment for recruiting and retaining black students and faculty.
This is beyond lame.....this entire story. It's a giant whatever.
Part of their history, in a time when slavery was legal and a different world. I have no doubt there will be ones that want to start the apology tour, and no doubt there actually will be people that do it. On the flip side, maybe they should do an examination of some of the descendants of these slaves and see how their world turned out coming to America. The slaves had it terrible, but one wonders if they had never been brought to the new world what would their descendants have become?
Someone said fascinating story.....there are several very good books by historians about this very topic, about how the incredible journey and terrible circumstances of the slaves led to the betterment of their descendants as a result. Before someone goes off half cocked like I'm supporting slavery, I most certainly am not. I'm pointing out that some (yes some) positive impacts came of it for some people down the line.
Remember when Michael Johnson said this? http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/05/nation/la-na-nn-michael-johnson-slave-descendants-make-better-athletes-20120705
Of course when he said it, immediately folks were looking for "repercussions", when all he said was something that quite frankly should not be ignored.
Pile on gents.....can't wait to hear the attacks.
Quote from: warriorchick on April 17, 2016, 01:02:02 PM
If you have read any scholarly biographies of Father Marquette, you would know that he did not give a rat's ass about politics, and actually saved many Native American lives by protecting peaceful tribes from the warrior tribes (now there is some irony for you) and convinced many of these aggressive groups to give up their murderous and even cannibalistic ways. If France used his actions to further their own less-than-honorable goals, that does not diminish Father Marquette's accomplishments as a peacemaker and spreader of Christian Faith.
I should have used teal.
One thing people today get wrong when looking at history is to look at it with today's morality. Societies and the thoughts behind it evolve. Good people operated within the framework of their day, we should sugarcoat what they did but we can't lose sight of the rest of the person, especially when today's view of them is to feed an agenda.
Quote from: Badgerhater on April 17, 2016, 01:25:59 PM
I should have used teal.
One thing people today get wrong when looking at history is to look at it with today's morality. Societies and the thoughts behind it evolve. Good people operated within the framework of their day, we should sugarcoat what they did but we can't lose sight of the rest of the person, especially when today's view of them is to feed an agenda.
DING DING DING
Should NOT sugarcoat!! I hate when I forget a word and am typing on the phone
Quote from: warriorchick on April 17, 2016, 01:02:02 PM
If you have read any scholarly biographies of Father Marquette, you would know that he did not give a rat's ass about politics, and actually saved many Native American lives by protecting peaceful tribes from the warrior tribes (now there is some irony for you) and convinced many of these aggressive groups to give up their murderous and even cannibalistic ways. If France used his actions to further their own less-than-honorable goals, that does not diminish Father Marquette's accomplishments as a peacemaker and spreader of Christian Faith.
Chick
Did you actually read and understand what I wrote?
"I love the Marquette name and embrace honoring a good man who dedicated his life to the earnest service of his faith."
Quote from: Badgerhater on April 17, 2016, 01:25:59 PM
I should have used teal.
One thing people today get wrong when looking at history is to look at it with today's morality. Societies and the thoughts behind it evolve. Good people operated within the framework of their day, we should sugarcoat what they did but we can't lose sight of the rest of the person, especially when today's view of them is to feed an agenda.
you da man!!
Quote from: drewm88 on April 17, 2016, 01:11:31 PM
I don't think anyone's proposing erasing history. If anything, this is recognizing history more in the Georgetown situation. They took the names of the two priests off a building. I think that's a good step. Why continue to honor them?
The student movement this fall that got the buildings renamed also called for GTown to use the NPV of the slave sale to establish an endowment for recruiting and retaining black students and faculty.
Here's where I'd like to see some consistency. If it is a good idea to take their names off the buildings, then when do we take LBJ's name, Truman's name, etc, off Federal buildings? They'll all a part of history, and quite frankly their names should remain.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 17, 2016, 02:12:31 PM
Here's where I'd like to see some consistency. If it is a good idea to take their names off the buildings, then when do we take LBJ's name, Truman's name, etc, off Federal buildings? They'll all a part of history, and quite frankly their names should remain.
Some might suggest Truman and LBJ's occasional racist remarks aren't quite the equivalent of profiting from the slave trade, and trying to draw parallels between the two is inane.
Some might also suggest that, if one looks at the totality of those two men's lives, what they did to promote the cause of racial equality far, far outweighs incidental cases of verbal diarrhea.
For what it's worth, I'm not advocating removing anyone's name from anything here. Better to leave the name/statue/whatever in place and make it an educational tool.
Except JoePa's statue. F--- that child rape apologist.
From a historical perspective this is an interesting story and this is the first I've heard of it. From a personal perspective, I hope the "controversy" blows over before my daughter starts there in fall 2017. I suspect that it will. From an outsider's point of view, I've always had an impression (maybe wrongly) that Georgetown embraces the African-American culture more than a lot of other schools (at least in the athletics department). I'll be interested to see whether my impressions on that issue (both in athletics and the university as a whole) evolve in the coming years.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 17, 2016, 02:27:50 PM
Some might suggest Truman and LBJ's occasional racist remarks aren't quite the equivalent of profiting from the slave trade, and trying to draw parallels between the two is inane.
Some might also suggest that, if one looks at the totality of those two men's lives, what they did to promote the cause of racial equality far, far outweighs incidental cases of verbal diarrhea.
For what it's worth, I'm not advocating removing anyone's name from anything here. Better to leave the name/statue/whatever in place and make it an educational tool.
Except JoePa's statue. F--- that child rape apologist.
Some might also say it depends who said it. Dem says it....whistling through the wind. If a GOP politician said it, well HBO will get the "documentary" going along with all the outrage.
Besides, haven't you been paying attention to the latest outrages on campuses, Pakuni? It's all about safe spaces and hurtful "words", which is what LBJ and Truman used...oh, and Truman was also a member of the KKK so there's that.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 17, 2016, 03:49:58 PM
Some might also say it depends who said it. Dem says it....whistling through the wind. If a GOP politician said it, well HBO will get the "documentary" going along with all the outrage.
Besides, haven't you been paying attention to the latest outrages on campuses, Pakuni? It's all about safe spaces and hurtful "words", which is what LBJ and Truman used...oh, and Truman was also a member of the KKK so there's that.
So, you're needlessly outraged over others' needless outrage.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 17, 2016, 04:13:59 PM
So, you're needlessly outraged over others' needless outrage.
I mock their outrage, as do many other Anericans. I don't embrace it, like so many of you do.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 17, 2016, 04:46:04 PM
I mock their outrage, as do many other Anericans. I don't embrace it, like so many of you do.
People might think better of you if you didn't make things up so often.
Quote from: keefe on April 17, 2016, 11:58:07 AM
I don't see any reason for GU to say anything. It is a part of their history.
They don't have to say anything at all. They will have to say something if it goes beyond the NYT article and grows into something more significant.
If schools are supposed to take names off buildings for this, maybe we should also blast Washington and Jefferson's heads off Mount Rushmore.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on April 17, 2016, 06:13:04 PM
If schools are supposed to take names off buildings for this, maybe we should also blast Washington and Jefferson's heads off Mount Rushmore.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/04/472985937/princeton-will-keep-woodrow-wilsons-name-on-school-buildings
Princeton University's board of trustees has decided that it will not remove Woodrow Wilson's name from its School of Public and International Affairs and from a residential college, despite student protests over the former president's segregationist views.
Wilson also was an avowed segregationist. He once said that "the whole temper and tradition of the place are such that no negro has ever applied for admission," according to the committee report. It added that when a black student in 1909 asked about applying, Wilson said "that it is altogether inadvisable for a colored man to enter Princeton."
Although the board of trustees decided not to remove Wilson's name from the institutions, it "called for an expanded and more vigorous commitment to diversity and inclusion at Princeton." That includes introducing a new program aimed to bring more minority students into the university's doctoral programs and diversifying campus art.
The board also agreed to change Princeton's informal motto from "Princeton in the nation's service and the service of all nations" to "Princeton in the nation's service and the service of humanity."
Quote from: keefe on April 17, 2016, 11:58:07 AM
I don't see any reason for GU to say anything. It is a part of their history.
Should Marquette change its name? After all, Fr Marquette was an instrument in France's Mission Civilisatrice. Some believe, with reason, that European colonization employed conversion to Christianity as a mechanism for subjugating native populations.
One of my colleagues is a Tulalip who had served in the Obama Administration as the Senior Policy Advisor to the Sec of Interior for Natural Resource Management. She is a sophisticated, discerning individual. She knows I am active in my Anglican parish but has said that, like most of the leadership of Indian Country, she has an inherent distrust of all religion because of history.
Fr Marquette was an instrument in the expansion of New France. The French policy of Mission Civilisatrice was effectively cultural genocide. Should Marquette change its name because of that legacy?
I agree completely. Let's not re-rite history - good or bad.
Maybe we should get rid of all references to Jefferson as well - he did own over 600 slaves.
What all these silly kids who are protesting these silly "long gone" issues don't realize is that now - with social media - when they are applying to US for jobs we can tell if they were involved and exclude those who were from consideration from anything with real responsibility in the corporate world.
They're not campaigning for an issue, they're compromising their future.
Quote from: WarriorFan on April 17, 2016, 09:34:02 PM
What all these silly kids who are protesting these silly "long gone" issues don't realize is that now - with social media - when they are applying to US for jobs we can tell if they were involved and exclude those who were from consideration from anything with real responsibility in the corporate world.
They're not campaigning for an issue, they're compromising their future.
Why would you exclude someone who wants to take a name off of a building if they were otherwise qualified?
Quote from: Pakuni on April 17, 2016, 04:50:27 PM
People might think better of you if you didn't make things up so often.
If it's people like you, I know I'm doing just fine. I'm not making up a thing, but keep at it Chuckles.
As a member of the Georgetown community I can assert that this issue is getting zero traction among the Hoya faithful.
In fact, 6' 9" George Murasan walking on is getting more ink than anything else.
Hoya Saxa!
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 17, 2016, 09:35:11 PM
Why would you exclude someone who wants to take a name off of a building if they were otherwise qualified?
if there were 2, 3, or 4 vying for the same position who didn't partake in activities you deemed questionable or could carry over to your company; are they rabble rousers? just another piece of data, that's all. sure you could address it it in an interview and have the applicant expand upon their "philosophies" somewhat without asking them directly what their definitions of free speech and how they would make the world a better place
It used to be considered a good thing for the young to be idealistic before they hit the real world.
Now we want them to get off our lawn.
A similar story has been going on here locally.
Due to questions of his relation to slavery, Yale has formed a committee to determine if they should remove John C Calhoun's name from one of the residential colleges.
Quote from: Archies Bat on April 18, 2016, 07:01:18 AM
It used to be considered a good thing for the young to be idealistic before they hit the real world.
Now we want them to get off our lawn.
I am completely in favor of young people trying to shape the future, and
understanding the past is an important part of that process.
The problem today is that many are trying to
erase the past....
Quote from: rocket surgeon on April 18, 2016, 04:57:52 AM
if there were 2, 3, or 4 vying for the same position who didn't partake in activities you deemed questionable or could carry over to your company; are they rabble rousers? just another piece of data, that's all. sure you could address it it in an interview and have the applicant expand upon their "philosophies" somewhat without asking them directly what their definitions of free speech and how they would make the world a better place
Unless they did something disruptive or violent during the protest, I wouldn't even think about it.
To put the shoe on the other foot, how would people feel if job finalists were excluded based on their participating in a pro life protest?
Quote from: GooooMarquette on April 18, 2016, 08:16:50 AM
I am completely in favor of young people trying to shape the future, and understanding the past is an important part of that process.
The problem today is that many are trying to erase the past....
Asking the University to no longer honor someone by removing their name off a building is not "erasing the past."
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 18, 2016, 08:54:20 AM
Asking the University to no longer honor someone by removing their name off a building is not "erasing the past."
Of course it isn't - you can't actually erase the past. I said they're
trying to erase the past...which is exactly what is happening. They are trying to remove a reference to someone who did something bad.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on April 18, 2016, 08:56:59 AM
Of course it isn't - you can't actually erase the past. I said they're trying to erase the past...which is exactly what is happening. They are trying to remove a reference to someone who did something bad.
That's not even trying to erase the past. Removing the name from a building is an act of refusing to honor someone. Not forgetting the past.
This is a completely ridiculous example, but if we found out that John Raynor sexually assaulted young boys while Marquette President, I would fully expect that the University would remove his name from the library. He would no longer deserve that honor. That's not "trying to erase the past."
Now if you scrubbed the Raynor name from the archives and otherwise refused to acknowledge that he was a past President of the University, *that* is trying to erase the past.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 18, 2016, 09:06:10 AM
That's not even trying to erase the past. Removing the name from a building is an act of refusing to honor someone. Not forgetting the past.
This is a completely ridiculous example, but if we found out that John Raynor sexually assaulted young boys while Marquette President, I would fully expect that the University would remove his name from the library. He would no longer deserve that honor. That's not "trying to erase the past."
Now if you scrubbed the Raynor name from the archives and otherwise refused to acknowledge that he was a past President of the University, *that* is trying to erase the past.
You're right - the Raynor example is ridiculous...because sexual assault was both illegal and viewed by society as immoral at the time of Raynor's tenure. The GTown example is one where selling slaves wasn't illegal at the time, and society was divided as to its morality...more than 20 years before the Emancipation Proclamation.
Maybe we should just name buildings after people who did nothing illegal or immoral at the time...and nothing that will ever become illegal or viewed as immoral.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on April 18, 2016, 10:17:46 AM
You're right - the Raynor example is ridiculous...because sexual assault was both illegal and viewed by society as immoral at the time of Raynor's tenure. The GTown example is one where selling slaves wasn't illegal at the time, and society was divided as to its morality...more than 20 years before the Emancipation Proclamation.
I agree with you. I don't think his name should be removed for the reasons you cited. However I just don't like the idea that protesters are trying to "erase the past" by trying to remove his name.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on April 18, 2016, 08:16:50 AM
The problem today is that many are trying to erase the past....
Which I guess is the opposite of the Trumpites and other selective-memory types who are always trying to relive the past and "Make America Great Again."
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 18, 2016, 10:21:22 AM
I agree with you. I don't think his name should be removed for the reasons you cited. However I just don't like the idea that protesters are trying to "erase the past" by trying to remove his name.
But think of the effect they have by simply removing the name - the discussion of the good and bad things he did is a news story for a couple of weeks, then quickly gets lost. "Erased" for practical purposes. If they keep the name there...and also erect some sort of plaque discussing and acknowledging his good
and bad accomplishments, it better serves to educate and inform the present and future.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on April 18, 2016, 08:56:59 AM
Of course it isn't - you can't actually erase the past. I said they're trying to erase the past...which is exactly what is happening. They are trying to remove a reference to someone who did something bad.
I don't know. I'm not quite sure where the line needs to be drawn between not trying to re-write history and honoring someone who was a bad person by keeping their name on a building, money, etc.
It's easy when it is about an issue like the Confederate flag being given a place of honor. It was a symbol of the fight to retain slavery and of the states who killed tens and tens of thousands of American soldiers.
It's a little trickier when it comes to people. We can't use today's standards as a litmus test for someone who lived hundreds of years ago. We want to compartmentalize everybody, but it is not that simple.
Quote from: brandx on April 18, 2016, 10:30:11 AM
I don't know. I'm not quite sure where the line needs to be drawn between not trying to re-write history and honoring someone who was a bad person by keeping their name on a building, money, etc.
It's easy when it is about an issue like the Confederate flag being given a place of honor. It was a symbol of the fight to retain slavery and of the states who killed tens and tens of thousands of American soldiers.
It's a little trickier when it comes to people. We can't use today's standards as a litmus test for someone who lived hundreds of years ago. We want to compartmentalize everybody, but it is not that simple.
Context would be my guide, brand. If an accomplished person from another era held views which were (in his or her day) mainstream (even if controversial) I would cut him slack, even if those views are pretty much universally condemned today. I think people who ignore context are as ignorant as those who are biblical literalists.
Quote from: MU82 on April 18, 2016, 10:28:03 AM
Which I guess is the opposite of the Trumpites and other selective-memory types who are always trying to relive the past and "Make America Great Again."
Guess you don't read the news much
Quote from: Lennys Tap on April 18, 2016, 12:25:11 PM
Context would be my guide, brand. If an accomplished person from another era held views which were (in his or her day) mainstream (even if controversial) I would cut him slack, even if those views are pretty much universally condemned today. I think people who ignore context are as ignorant as those who are biblical literalists.
I agree with brandx that it's tricky when we're judging people by their actions, and your point about context is kind of what I was trying to say when I distinguished the Raynor hypothetical from the Georgetown situation.
It still doesn't make for an easy answer, but judgments are more informed if they take into account the context in which actions occurred.
Quote from: elephantraker on April 18, 2016, 12:27:30 PM
Guess you don't read the news much
I get all my news from Heisenberg.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on April 18, 2016, 12:32:44 PM
I agree with brandx that it's tricky when we're judging people by their actions, and your point about context is kind of what I was trying to say when I distinguished the Raynor hypothetical from the Georgetown situation.
It still doesn't make for an easy answer, but judgments are more informed if they take into account the context in which actions occurred.
I think you, Lenny, and I are all trying to say the same thing here.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 18, 2016, 08:53:17 AM
Unless they did something disruptive or violent during the protest, I wouldn't even think about it.
To put the shoe on the other foot, how would people feel if job finalists were excluded based on their participating in a pro life protest?
well this would all depend on who the employer is. chick-fil-a? they may want to check out some alternatives for example. see if they have any better candidates. how big of a role certain things play in a job interview depends on the philosophy of the employer
This may be restating a lot of views already expressed but I think the following:
-Historical context is critical, if something was acceptable or within the mainstream then it's not a disqualifier. We should certainly educate people to that aspect of a historical persons "story" but it should not prevent us from honoring them for otherwise important contributions
-To eliminate the honoraries for someone who did something that would be unacceptable in modern times does eliminate that person from memory and ruins a perfectly good teaching moment about past society. It opens the door to our society being doomed to repeat it's history.
A less political example for this is Pete Rose. He should be in the Hall of Fame for his contributions to the game and his playing career, however a large portion of his plaque should talk about all the negative stuff he did within baseball. Same could go for Ty Cobb, etc.
We need to talk about good and bad, not just kill the good because we want to hide from the bad.
Quote from: warriorchick on April 17, 2016, 01:02:02 PM
If you have read any scholarly biographies of Father Marquette, you would know that he did not give a rat's ass about politics, and actually saved many Native American lives by protecting peaceful tribes from the warrior tribes (now there is some irony for you) and convinced many of these aggressive groups to give up their murderous and even cannibalistic ways. If France used his actions to further their own less-than-honorable goals, that does not diminish Father Marquette's accomplishments as a peacemaker and spreader of Christian Faith.
Well said!
Quote from: mu03eng on April 18, 2016, 01:03:12 PM
This may be restating a lot of views already expressed but I think the following:
-Historical context is critical, if something was acceptable or within the mainstream then it's not a disqualifier. We should certainly educate people to that aspect of a historical persons "story" but it should not prevent us from honoring them for otherwise important contributions
I generally agree, but I think we shouldn't use "historical context" to give historical figures a pass on their misdeeds. Because slavery was more acceptable in the 18th century than the 21st century makes it no less a crime against humanity. I don't think we need to villainize someone like Jefferson for being a slave owner - and certainly not "erase" him from history - but neither should we whitewash that unsavory aspect of his character or shrug and say "well, that's just the way it was." Slavery was no less evil in 1776 than in 2016, and we shouldn't treat it otherwise.
Anyhow, I think it's far more interesting and worthwhile to exam people like Jefferson as three-dimensional human beings with faults as well as great strengths, rather than the cartoonish superhero Founding Fathers treatment we usually give them.
Quote
A less political example for this is Pete Rose. He should be in the Hall of Fame for his contributions to the game and his playing career, however a large portion of his plaque should talk about all the negative stuff he did within baseball. Same could go for Ty Cobb, etc.
Nope. Never.
In the same vein, I saw that the Treasury Department is nixing replacement of Alexander Hamilton from the $10 and will instead switch out Andrew Jackson from the $20. I wonder if the Broadway success of Hamilton had anything to do with it?
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on April 18, 2016, 01:56:37 PM
In the same vein, I saw that the Treasury Department is nixing replacement of Alexander Hamilton from the $10 and will instead switch out Andrew Jackson from the $20. I wonder if the Broadway success of Hamilton had anything to do with it?
Funny you should ask....
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/04/13/thanks_hamilton_fans_you_might_have_just_cost_us_a_woman_on_the_10_bill.html
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on April 18, 2016, 01:56:37 PM
In the same vein, I saw that the Treasury Department is nixing replacement of Alexander Hamilton from the $10 and will instead switch out Andrew Jackson from the $20. I wonder if the Broadway success of Hamilton had anything to do with it?
I think it was more that Jackson is considered the most racist of US presidents, so they decided to replace him instead of Hamilton.
Quote from: brandx on April 18, 2016, 02:29:58 PM
I think it was more that Jackson is considered the most racist of US presidents, so they decided to replace him instead of Hamilton.
i'm sure all the lyndon b. johnson stuff will be right behind then-heyheyhein'a
Quote from: Pakuni on April 18, 2016, 01:36:09 PM
I generally agree, but I think we shouldn't use "historical context" to give historical figures a pass on their misdeeds. Because slavery was more acceptable in the 18th century than the 21st century makes it no less a crime against humanity. I don't think we need to villainize someone like Jefferson for being a slave owner - and certainly not "erase" him from history - but neither should we whitewash that unsavory aspect of his character or shrug and say "well, that's just the way it was." Slavery was no less evil in 1776 than in 2016, and we shouldn't treat it otherwise.
Anyhow, I think it's far more interesting and worthwhile to exam people like Jefferson as three-dimensional human beings with faults as well as great strengths, rather than the cartoonish superhero Founding Fathers treatment we usually give them.
You and I are in 100% agreement on this part and was mostly what I was trying to say.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on April 18, 2016, 01:56:37 PM
In the same vein, I saw that the Treasury Department is nixing replacement of Alexander Hamilton from the $10 and will instead switch out Andrew Jackson from the $20. I wonder if the Broadway success of Hamilton had anything to do with it?
A couple of my colleagues are prominent thought leaders from Indian Country. They really do not like Andrew Jackson.
Which raises an interesting twist to this conversation: Should Andrew Jackson have any place or word of honor in the cavalcade of American heroes?
He was a war hero and the first western President whose election and Presidency signaled the rise of the Common Man.
But he was also a fierce advocate of slavery and a major proponent and participant in the genocide campaign waged by the US Government against American Indians. Jackson personally led the military effort that slaughtered tens of thousands of Indians, including women and children, throughout the southeast.
As President he advocated for the forced removal of entire communities of Chickasaws, Choctaws, Creeks, Seminoles, and Cherokees in order to open up the land for white slave holders who would begin tobacco and cotton cultivation.
As GooooMarquette rightly points out, many practices we find objectionable were societal norms in the day. Slavery is abhorrent to us but many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were themselves slaveholders.
But Jackson was more than just a slaveholder. He actively worked to expand slave holding territories through ethnic cleansing those areas of Indians. And his treatment of Indians was not the benign neglect which has characterized much of Federal Indian policy but, rather, active extermination.
People want to scrub many names from history and yet say nothing when they pull out a twenty from their wallet. Moral indignation isn't relative.
Quote from: brandx on April 18, 2016, 02:29:58 PM
I think it was more that Jackson is considered the most racist of US presidents, so they decided to replace him instead of Hamilton.
That and the fact Hamilton was essentially the creator the US economic system so it's only appropriate he appears on a piece of currency.
Quote from: keefe on April 18, 2016, 02:54:58 PM
A couple of my colleagues are prominent thought leaders from Indian Country. They really do not like Andrew Jackson.
Which raises an interesting twist to this conversation: Should Andrew Jackson have any place or word of honor in the cavalcade of American heroes?
He was a war hero and the first western President whose election and Presidency signaled the rise of the Common Man.
But he was also a fierce advocate of slavery and a major proponent and participant in the genocide campaign waged by the US Government against American Indians. Jackson personally led the military effort that slaughtered tens of thousands of Indians, including women and children, throughout the southeast.
As President he advocated for the forced removal of entire communities of Chickasaws, Choctaws, Creeks, Seminoles, and Cherokees in order to open up the land for white slave holders who would begin tobacco and cotton cultivation.
As GooooMarquette rightly points out, many practices we find objectionable were societal norms in the day. Slavery is abhorrent to us but many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were themselves slaveholders.
But Jackson was more than just a slaveholder. He actively worked to expand slave holding territories through ethnic cleansing those areas of Indians. And his treatment of Indians was not the benign neglect which has characterized much of Federal Indian policy but, rather, active extermination.
People want to scrub many names from history and yet say nothing when they pull out a twenty from their wallet. Moral indignation isn't relative.
You have a point there.
In a show of my disgust with Thomas Jefferson's slave ownership, I will immediately get rid of all my $2 bills and refuse to use them going forward.
Quote from: warriorchick on April 18, 2016, 04:52:05 PM
You have a point there.
In a show of my disgust with Thomas Jefferson's slave ownership, I will immediately get rid of all my $2 bills and refuse to use them going forward.
While were at it lets tear down his monument and burn the Declaration of Independence or at least white out Jefferson's or any other slave owners name. In fact as a person who suffers from white privilege I'll give all that I have to the descendants of slaves; but only if everyone else who suffers from white privilege does, to paraphrase someone who is running for president.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 18, 2016, 01:36:09 PM
I generally agree, but I think we shouldn't use "historical context" to give historical figures a pass on their misdeeds. Because slavery was more acceptable in the 18th century than the 21st century makes it no less a crime against humanity. I don't think we need to villainize someone like Jefferson for being a slave owner - and certainly not "erase" him from history - but neither should we whitewash that unsavory aspect of his character or shrug and say "well, that's just the way it was." Slavery was no less evil in 1776 than in 2016, and we shouldn't treat it otherwise.
Anyhow, I think it's far more interesting and worthwhile to exam people like Jefferson as three-dimensional human beings with faults as well as great strengths, rather than the cartoonish superhero Founding Fathers treatment we usually give them.
Agree.
Quote from: brandx on April 18, 2016, 02:29:58 PM
I think it was more that Jackson is considered the most racist of US presidents, so they decided to replace him instead of Hamilton.
The article I referenced said that the $10 bill was the next inline to get enhanced security features, which is why it Hamilton was going to get axed favor of a dead vajajay-possessing American.
Quote from: warriorchick on April 18, 2016, 07:04:44 PM
The article I referenced said that the $10 bill was the next inline to get enhanced security features, which is why it Hamilton was going to get axed in favor of a dead vajajay-possessing American.
Yup. That was the original plan.
I nominate Sally Hemmings. She looked like a white woman (her father was Jefferson's father-in-law) -- so the righties won't even need to boycott the Twenty. :)
Maybe they should rotate who are on these bills every couple of years. Why should they be set in stone?
Quote from: brandx on April 18, 2016, 07:45:52 PM
Yup. That was the original plan.
I nominate Sally Hemmings. She looked like a white woman (her father was Jefferson's father-in-law) -- so the righties won't even need to boycott the Twenty. :)
But she allegedly had extramarital relations with Thomas Jefferson, so we could never let a immoral hussy like that on our money.
Quote from: warriorchick on April 18, 2016, 07:53:05 PM
But she allegedly had extramarital relations with Thomas Jefferson, so we could never let a immoral hussy like that on our money.
That was my point.
You're off your game tonight. Usually I have to hustle to keep up with you.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 18, 2016, 07:49:13 PM
Maybe they should rotate who are on these bills every couple of years. Why should they be set in stone?
In a couple of years it will all be digital (bitcoin) and this entire process will be irrelevant.
Quote from: brandx on April 18, 2016, 07:57:57 PM
That was my point.
You're off your game tonight. Usually I have to hustle to keep up with you.
Yep. I think i need a reset.
Quote from: mu03eng on April 18, 2016, 01:03:12 PM
A less political example for this is Pete Rose. He should be in the Hall of Fame for his contributions to the game and his playing career, however a large portion of his plaque should talk about all the negative stuff he did within baseball. Same could go for Ty Cobb, etc.
We need to talk about good and bad, not just kill the good because we want to hide from the bad.
Completely disagree because the context was plain as day... DO NOT EVER BET ON BASEBALL OR YOU WILL BE BANNED. That was in every clubhouse when he was there. Drilled into every player, manager. Not the case with players or managers 20, 30, 50 years earlier, but it was unacceptable when Pete did it and he knew it.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 18, 2016, 07:49:13 PM
Maybe they should rotate who are on these bills every couple of years. Why should they be set in stone?
Uh...is that a joke???
(http://www.listofwonders.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Mount-Rushmore.jpg)
Quote from: mu03eng on April 18, 2016, 01:03:12 PM
A less political example for this is Pete Rose. He should be in the Hall of Fame for his contributions to the game and his playing career, however a large portion of his plaque should talk about all the negative stuff he did within baseball. Same could go for Ty Cobb, etc.
By the way, there's some new research/evidence that shows that the common portrayal of Ty Cobb as an extreme racist, dirty player and all around a-hole is a gross mischaracterization.
http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/who-was-ty-cobb-the-history-we-know-thats-wrong/
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 18, 2016, 09:10:06 PM
Completely disagree because the context was plain as day... DO NOT EVER BET ON BASEBALL OR YOU WILL BE BANNED. That was in every clubhouse when he was there.
Yes, but did you know that the Hall of Fame had no rule prohibiting banned players from being inducted until 1991 - two years after Rose was nailed for gambling and just before he was supposed to go on the BBWAA ballot? The Hall didn't want Rose, so it scrambled to enact what really was the Pete Rose Rule. It was not even thinly disguised as anything else.
I have been a Hall voter for 20 years now (and yes, everybody is happy for me). I have never cast a write-in vote for Rose, as a few of my peers have. However, had he been on the ballot, I would have voted for him as a player because he had been implicated only for what he did as a manager, not a player. I wrote columns saying he should never be allowed to be involved in baseball - not as a manager, coach, GM, ambassador, etc. - but I thought his playing exploits deserved Hall recognition.
Having said that, I'm glad he wasn't on the ballot to get my vote. It has since come out that he likely did bet on baseball as a player, and I would have wanted my vote back!
Quote from: MU82 on April 18, 2016, 10:24:49 PM
Yes, but did you know that the Hall of Fame had no rule prohibiting banned players from being inducted until 1991 - two years after Rose was nailed for gambling and just before he was supposed to go on the BBWAA ballot? The Hall didn't want Rose, so it scrambled to enact what really was the Pete Rose Rule. It was not even thinly disguised as anything else.
I have been a Hall voter for 20 years now (and yes, everybody is happy for me). I have never cast a write-in vote for Rose, as a few of my peers have. However, had he been on the ballot, I would have voted for him as a player because he had been implicated only for what he did as a manager, not a player. I wrote columns saying he should never be allowed to be involved in baseball - not as a manager, coach, GM, ambassador, etc. - but I thought his playing exploits deserved Hall recognition.
Having said that, I'm glad he wasn't on the ballot to get my vote. It has since come out that he likely did bet on baseball as a player, and I would have wanted my vote back!
Yes, I'm aware of the Pete Rose Rule, and no doubt that it was put into place as a result of his actions.
I have trouble with the notion of putting him in as a player, but not manager. How do you separate the two? Would it be ok to put Marge Schott in the Hall because of what she did for little kids and the Reds, and ignore her other stuff? In my opinion, you are putting in the man, not the position he held, thus they can't be separated. Just my opinion.
I'd also argue that even prior to the Pete Rose Rule, there were the aspects of "Character" and "Integrity" of the candidate on the BBWAA balloting procedures. If memory serves, that has been in place for decades, far before the Pete Rose Rule. On that alone, I couldn't vote him in.
Would love to talk baseball with you sometime over a beer or two. I'm sure you have some wonderful stories, I have a few of my own from working for a few clubs. Good times.
Quote from: MU82 on April 18, 2016, 10:24:49 PM
I have been a Hall voter for 20 years now
Are you prepared to correct the Luis Tiant outrage?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 18, 2016, 10:39:05 PM
Yes, I'm aware of the Pete Rose Rule, and no doubt that it was put into place as a result of his actions.
I have trouble with the notion of putting him in as a player, but not manager. How do you separate the two? Would it be ok to put Marge Schott in the Hall because of what she did for little kids and the Reds, and ignore her other stuff? In my opinion, you are putting in the man, not the position he held, thus they can't be separated. Just my opinion.
I'd also argue that even prior to the Pete Rose Rule, there were the aspects of "Character" and "Integrity" of the candidate on the BBWAA balloting procedures. If memory serves, that has been in place for decades, far before the Pete Rose Rule. On that alone, I couldn't vote him in.
Would love to talk baseball with you sometime over a beer or two. I'm sure you have some wonderful stories, I have a few of my own from working for a few clubs. Good times.
I think you know the Marge Schott comparison is silly.
FYI, the BBWAA votes only on players. The others - managers, umpires, executives - are decided by different panels.
I also think you know that there would be many omissions from the Hall if BBWAA voters adhered strictly to the "character" and "integrity" aspects. No Ty Cobb for sure. Probably no Mickey Mantle. Quite probably not even Babe Ruth, a serial adulterer, drunk and selfish SOB. Etc, etc, etc. Maybe you're OK with no Ruth, Cobb and Mantle in the Hall, and that's fine. We all have opinions.
I'd be happy to have a beer with you someday. You buy. And no politics talk!
I follow Georgetown on Facebook and saw this today:
Dear Members of the Georgetown University Community:
As our academic year comes to a close, I write to share with you some reflections on the work that has been underway on our campus to address the persistence of racial injustice in our nation and the historical role that Georgetown played in the institution of slavery.
Two significant efforts have guided our engagement: The Working Group on Slavery, Memory and Reconciliation, which began its work in September of last year; and The Working Group on Racial Injustice: A Georgetown Response, which I described in remarks to our community on February 4th and which began its work in March. I look forward to sharing updates on their work to develop new academic opportunities in the coming semester.
In recent days, aspects of our work were featured in a powerful article in The New York Times. We are deeply grateful to the members of the Working Group on Slavery, Memory and Reconciliation for their efforts to promote dialogue, reconciliation, reflection, and deeper understanding. Over the course of the past year, our efforts to address the historical legacy of slavery have focused on a new digital archive of historical documents, conducting archival research on the slaves and searching for their descendants, community dialogues, a Teach-In, and a week-long symposium taking place this week in honor of D.C. Emancipation Day. I look forward to their forthcoming recommendations at the end of the semester.
Our work—to remember, to reflect, to act—continues in important ways.
These efforts—which build upon the dedicated work of many in our community over the course of the past few decades—provide distinct opportunities for our community to make substantive contributions to the ways in which we study, engage, and respond to historic and contemporary understandings of racial injustice.
At the conclusion of the fall semester, we had a special ceremony in which we removed the names from two of our buildings, renaming them Remembrance Hall and Freedom Hall.
At that time, I shared these words:
"Today, we mark a milestone in our efforts to make visible, and to reconcile, the role of slavery and the forced enslavement of Africans and African-Americans by our community. Let us not take comfort in this step. Instead, let us see this as a challenge to each of us. What injustices do we fail to see? When do we fail to act? Where is our own moral imagination lacking, today?"
Our University has always aimed to be engaged in the world. This is the moment for us to find within each of ourselves and within our community, the resources of our moral imaginations to determine how we can contribute to responding to this urgent moment in our nation.
I wish to thank our community for thoughtfully engaging in these ongoing efforts and I look forward to our continuing work together.
Sincerely,
John J. DeGioia
Uh oh. Did someone alert keefe that the President of Georgetown University is using social media to communicate with his constituents?
Good on Georgetown for addressing the issue openly and posting on social media. I applaud their efforts.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 19, 2016, 11:47:04 AM
Uh oh. Did someone alert keefe that the President of Georgetown University is using social media to communicate with his constituents?
Yeah, well, Georgetown has always struck me as kind of a second-rate institution.
Quote from: warriorchick on April 19, 2016, 12:09:55 PM
Yeah, well, Georgetown has always struck me as kind of a second-rate institution.
They're no Zipcar that's for sure.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 19, 2016, 12:15:58 PM
They're no Zipcar that's for sure.
You are an intelligent, discerning chap. Read
Peers Inc by Robin Chase. It is thought provoking. Chase has a unique take on technology, UX, and engagement.
ZipCar is a commercial application of her unique perspective on engineering change in user behaviors and economic decision-making but her real value is on social impact, eliminating waste, and capturing benefit throughout the decision-chain.
You can mock it but unless you understand the underlying concept it is silly to criticize what you don't understand.
Link added:
http://www.peersincorporated.com/
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 19, 2016, 11:47:04 AM
Uh oh. Did someone alert keefe that the President of Georgetown University is using social media to communicate with his constituents?
There is a fundamental difference in what Georgetown did on this and what Lovell did on Twitter. I trust you are not genuinely trying to establish some form of equivalency between the two cases.
Quote from: Coleman on April 19, 2016, 11:51:49 AM
Good on Georgetown for addressing the issue openly and posting on social media. I applaud their efforts.
I concur. This is an excellent example of an enterprise communicating something efficiently and effectively. The medium is not the issue.
Lovell chose to engage in a public sh1t fight with a disgruntled employee. DeGioia's action is markedly in tone, content. and context.
Quote from: keefe on April 19, 2016, 04:11:48 PM
You are an intelligent, discerning chap. Read Peers Inc by Robin Chase. It is thought provoking. Chase has a unique take on technology, UX, and engagement.
ZipCar is a commercial application of her unique perspective on engineering change in user behaviors and economic decision-making but her real value is on social impact, eliminating waste, and capturing benefit throughout the decision-chain.
You can mock it but unless you understand the underlying concept it is silly to criticize what you don't understand.
Link added:
http://www.peersincorporated.com/
I'm sure she is brilliant. I would not trust her insights on how to handle PR for a university. That's what is so funny about this.
Quote from: keefe on April 19, 2016, 04:17:51 PM
I concur. This is an excellent example of an enterprise communicating something efficiently and effectively. The medium is not the issue.
Lovell chose to engage in a public sh1t fight with a disgruntled employee. DeGioia's action is markedly in tone, content. and context.
Dude, you look down at Marquette because you like looking down at Marquette. It started before Lovell. It started before O'Brien.
We get it. It doesn't compare to your other alma maters. We are all simply lucky that we have managed to graduate from the same institution that you deemed worthy to spend your undergraduate years.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 19, 2016, 04:30:58 PM
I'm sure she is brilliant. I would not trust her insights on how to handle PR for a university. That's what is so funny about this.
What's funny about this is you seem to think that handling PR for a university is something mystical.
I offered up several case studies on effective responses to managing crises that were largely fueled by public perception - PepsiCo Hypo, PepsiCO Manila Lottery, and PepsiCo response to Jack in the Box deaths.
I was inside PepsiCo when all three hit and they are classic studies on how to address mass hysteria effectively and efficiently.
Read those HBS cases and then tell me that you still believe Lovell's response was practical or productive.
You might think adverse articles in the WSJ are acceptable but I do not.
I don't think "adverse articles in the WSJ are acceptable." I just think they are unavoidable when any organization conducts business the way it should.
Most people have forgotten about the article by now...if it ever really resonated with them in the first place. The fact that you are still talking about it says more about you than it does Lovell.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 19, 2016, 04:57:58 PM
I don't think "adverse articles in the WSJ are acceptable." I just think they are unavoidable when any organization conducts business the way it should.
Most people have forgotten about the article by now...if it ever really resonated with them in the first place. The fact that you are still talking about it says more about you than it does Lovell.
Now that is laughable.
Read the case studies I mentioned. Perhaps you will see how the best run enterprises manage risk and address PR crises.
Also, I recommend you get a copy of Robin Chase's case study on *gasp* ZipCar which she did for Sloan.
That is a superb example of how enlightened leadership manages problems. Rather than criticize her I suggest you understand who she is, how she thinks, and why she is lauded by genuine experts as an authority on leadership.
http://www.peersincorporated.com/
I think Marquette handled it just fine regardless of what you think keefe.
But I'm just a lowly Marquette grad. I barely know how to use utensils when I eat.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 19, 2016, 07:08:49 PM
I think Marquette handled it just fine regardless of what you think keefe.
But I'm just a lowly Marquette grad. I barely know how to use utensils when I eat.
I'm sorry you feel that way about Marquette as I am rather proud of my years there and my degree. In fact, that is why I am so disturbed at how painfully embarrassing the university decision-makers have acted in recent years.
Read the case studies I recommended and see how enlightened leadership manages PR nightmares with finesse and skill. Perhaps if you see alternatives you can appreciate how there have been lapses in judgment within the hallowed halls of our beloved alma mater.
Quote from: MU82 on April 19, 2016, 11:35:06 AM
I think you know the Marge Schott comparison is silly.
FYI, the BBWAA votes only on players. The others - managers, umpires, executives - are decided by different panels.
I also think you know that there would be many omissions from the Hall if BBWAA voters adhered strictly to the "character" and "integrity" aspects. No Ty Cobb for sure. Probably no Mickey Mantle. Quite probably not even Babe Ruth, a serial adulterer, drunk and selfish SOB. Etc, etc, etc. Maybe you're OK with no Ruth, Cobb and Mantle in the Hall, and that's fine. We all have opinions.
I'd be happy to have a beer with you someday. You buy. And no politics talk!
I almost never talk politics with friends, and never at work. So no problems there. 99.9% of my politics is here.
The Character and Integrity stuff, absolutely it could impact those others, but I would guess ultimately it wouldn't. How many women you pork, how much drinking, etc, has nothing to do with the game. Gambling was and has been an absolute no-no for so long that it directly impacts the game. In my opinion.
My point on the person thing, rather than the position...it is very difficult for me to process that the same person would be both in the HOF and permanently banned from baseball at the same time.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 19, 2016, 10:43:04 PM
I almost never talk politics with friends, and never at work. So no problems there. 99.9% of my politics is here.
The Character and Integrity stuff, absolutely it could impact those others, but I would guess ultimately it wouldn't. How many women you pork, how much drinking, etc, has nothing to do with the game. Gambling was and has been an absolute no-no for so long that it directly impacts the game. In my opinion.
My point on the person thing, rather than the position...it is very difficult for me to process that the same person would be both in the HOF and permanently banned from baseball at the same time.
The good news is you won't have to process it ... at least not in this case.
Pete ain't getting into the Hall.
Oh, and neither is Marge (or Schottzie)!
Quote from: MU82 on April 19, 2016, 11:32:44 PM
The good news is you won't have to process it ... at least not in this case.
Pete ain't getting into the Hall.
Oh, and neither is Marge (or Schottzie)!
Yup, and neither should.
Quote from: MU82 on April 19, 2016, 11:32:44 PM
The good news is you won't have to process it ... at least not in this case.
Pete ain't getting into the Hall.
Oh, and neither is Marge (or Schottzie)!
I don't know if he gambled as a player but his performance on the field was so good in so many ways for so long. As a player, if Mike Piazza and Ryne Sandberg are in the Hall then Pete Rose should get a VIP Pass.
Pete Rose is one of the top ten players of all time. He contributed far more to the game than Giamatti or Vincent ever did. If there is no evidence he gambled as a player then get him in the Hall.
Quote from: keefe on April 20, 2016, 01:21:05 AM
I don't know if he gambled as a player but his performance on the field was so good in so many ways for so long. As a player, if Mike Piazza and Ryne Sandberg are in the Hall then Pete Rose should get a VIP Pass.
Pete Rose is one of the top ten players of all time. He contributed far more to the game than Giamatti or Vincent ever did. If there is no evidence he gambled as a player then get him in the Hall.
He was a great ballplayer, who violated the absolute no-no that all players were told from day one and repeatedly through their careers. DO NOT GAMBLE on the game. Period. And yes, there is evidence. He bet on the team as a player a ton.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13114874/notebook-obtained-lines-shows-pete-rose-bet-baseball-player-1986?ex_cid=espnTW
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIHrGGLW8AAxzp8.jpg)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 20, 2016, 01:34:58 AM
He was a great ballplayer, who violated the absolute no-no that all players were told from day one and repeatedly through their careers. DO NOT GAMBLE on the game. Period. And yes, there is evidence. He bet on the team as a player a ton.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13114874/notebook-obtained-lines-shows-pete-rose-bet-baseball-player-1986?ex_cid=espnTW
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIHrGGLW8AAxzp8.jpg)
I stand corrected then. I agree that gambling is a toxic threat to all organized sports. If he gambled as a player then he sits outside looking in.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 19, 2016, 10:43:04 PM
I almost never talk politics with friends, and never at work. So no problems there. 99.9% of my politics is here.
lucky us
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 20, 2016, 09:29:22 AM
Ignore option works great
The problem is, half of the discussion on this board revolves around yours and Heisy's provocations. I'd be completely lost with you two on ignore.
Quote from: keefe on April 20, 2016, 01:21:05 AM
I don't know if he gambled as a player but his performance on the field was so good in so many ways for so long. As a player, if Mike Piazza and Ryne Sandberg are in the Hall then Pete Rose should get a VIP Pass.
Pete Rose is one of the top ten players of all time. He contributed far more to the game than Giamatti or Vincent ever did. If there is no evidence he gambled as a player then get him in the Hall.
As Chicos said, I believe in the last few months there has been evidence presented that he gambled on baseball when he was an active player. Quite disgraceful. He will never be in the Hall, nor should he.
Quote from: Coleman on April 20, 2016, 09:57:58 AM
The problem is, half of the discussion on this board revolves around yours and Heisy's provocations. I'd be completely lost with you two on ignore.
Trying to follow this board with Chico and Heisy on ignore would be like trying to read a book without the consonants.
Quote from: Coleman on April 20, 2016, 09:57:58 AM
The problem is, half of the discussion on this board revolves around yours and Heisy's provocations. I'd be completely lost with you two on ignore.
I think you're lost all by yourself. :)
I was just curious. Turns out I was completely right.
Top Topic Starters
ChicosBailBonds 1777
Heisenberg 1756
TallTitan34 942
tower912 900
77ncaachamps 885
mu_hilltopper 658
SoCalwarrior 596
4everwarriors 526
keefe 480
rocky_warrior 476
Now I am feeling self conscious. :-[ :-[
Quote from: Coleman on April 20, 2016, 04:34:45 PM
I was just curious. Turns out I was completely right.
Top Topic Starters
ChicosBailBonds 1777
Heisenberg 1756
TallTitan34 942
tower912 900
77ncaachamps 885
mu_hilltopper 658
SoCalwarrior 596
4everwarriors 526
keefe 480
rocky_warrior 476
That's awesome...didn't know you could search for topic starters. Someone has to lead and get folks chatting...we all have our crosses to bear.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 20, 2016, 09:23:10 PM
That's awesome...didn't know you could search for topic starters. Someone has to lead and get folks chatting...we all have our crosses to bear.
Thanks for your leadership. We're all deeply in your debt. Out of curiosity, how heavy is that cross? It needn't be tall, but I'm sure it weighs a ton - it has to support such an enormous horse's backside.
Coleman, just think, you only get me for small timely doses...I'm in and out.
Most time spent on MUScoop
The Sultan of Sunshine 341d 21h 40m
Frenns Liquor Depot 280d 10h 22m
Dr. Blackheart 224d 8h 24m
Lennys Tap 211d 2h 13m
nyg 197d 4h 1m
ChicosBailBonds 167d 16h 10m
rocky_warrior 166d 19h 6m
MUfan12 163d 11h 26m
Pakuni 160d 19h 38m
4everwarriors 160d 17h 36m
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 20, 2016, 11:26:51 PM
Coleman, just think, you only get me for small timely doses...I'm in and out.
Most time spent on MUScoop
The Sultan of Sunshine 341d 21h 40m
Frenns Liquor Depot 280d 10h 22m
Dr. Blackheart 224d 8h 24m
Lennys Tap 211d 2h 13m
nyg 197d 4h 1m
ChicosBailBonds 167d 16h 10m
rocky_warrior 166d 19h 6m
MUfan12 163d 11h 26m
Pakuni 160d 19h 38m
4everwarriors 160d 17h 36m
I'm on the internet most of the day for work - Scoop is almost always "open" but it's usually in the background.
That 4ever is a rabble rouser...
Quote from: Lennys Tap on April 20, 2016, 10:42:48 PM
Thanks for your leadership. We're all deeply in your debt. Out of curiosity, how heavy is that cross? It needn't be tall, but I'm sure it weighs a ton - it has to support such an enormous horse's backside.
I love Scoop. God help me I do love it so...
(https://media.giphy.com/media/14hopGnaKQtvgc/giphy.gif)
Quote from: keefe on April 20, 2016, 11:53:40 PM
I love Scoop. God help me I do love it so...
Lenny's daughter I met a few times when she was a student and I was in athletics. Charming gal, KH, very nice, part of Student Athletic Club that we created. Really great. Goes to show you can't pick your parents.
(http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/5-09-2015/Rrcu25.gif)
Quote from: Lennys Tap on April 20, 2016, 11:38:53 PM
I'm on the internet most of the day for work - Scoop is almost always "open" but it's usually in the background.
Ditto. Come here when I am writing. Believe it or not, this nonsense helps me gather my thoughts.
Quote from: Coleman on April 20, 2016, 04:34:45 PM
I was just curious. Turns out I was completely right.
Top Topic Starters
ChicosBailBonds 1777
Heisenberg 1756
TallTitan34 942
tower912 900
77ncaachamps 885
mu_hilltopper 658
SoCalwarrior 596
4everwarriors 526
keefe 480
rocky_warrior 476
Betting Heisy's recent surge puts him in the lead soon.
The topic starts graphed over time since joining Scoop would be compelling. Have there been different era's of Scoop in which certain posters seem to hold sway? Also the density of the topics started would be interesting as well i.e. you may start a lot of threads but if nobody shows up what does it matter?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on April 20, 2016, 11:38:53 PM
I'm on the internet most of the day for work - Scoop is almost always "open" but it's usually in the background.
Same here.
I believe the moderators said here a few years ago that if you have it in the background, after a certain amount of time of "inactivity", the clock stops running. I'll have to find the post, but that statement could be wrong....or I could be remembering it wrong.
Either way, it is good to know the commitment here to Scoop! Well done, all.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 20, 2016, 09:23:10 PM
That's awesome...didn't know you could search for topic starters. Someone has to lead and get folks chatting...we all have our crosses to bear.
Even Christ had Simon help carry his cross. Feel free to take a breather.
Descendants of slaves sold to benefit Georgetown call for a $1 billion foundation for reconciliation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/09/08/descendants-of-slaves-sold-by-georgetown-call-for-a-1-billion-foundation-for-reconciliation/?ICID=ref_fark&utm_content=link&utm_medium=website&utm_source=fark#comments
A group of descendants of slaves sold by Jesuits in the 19th century to benefit Georgetown University called on both the university and Maryland Jesuits to do more to promote reconciliation after the horrors of slavery, asking to create a charitable foundation.
The descendants proposed a $1 billion foundation and announced that they had raised $115,000 in seed money, an amount equivalent to the 1838 sales price for the 272 people sold to pay off a debt. That amount is equivalent to about $3 million in today's dollars.
Last week, Georgetown's president announced that it would apologize for the university's role in the slave trade, give an admissions preference to descendants of the 272 slaves, name two buildings in honor of those enslaved people and create a memorial. Georgetown was responding to a report from a group of faculty members, staff, students and alumni that examined the university's historical ties to slavery.
Quote from: Jesse Livermore on September 10, 2016, 06:40:20 AM
Descendants of slaves sold to benefit Georgetown call for a $1 billion foundation for reconciliation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/09/08/descendants-of-slaves-sold-by-georgetown-call-for-a-1-billion-foundation-for-reconciliation/?ICID=ref_fark&utm_content=link&utm_medium=website&utm_source=fark#comments
A group of descendants of slaves sold by Jesuits in the 19th century to benefit Georgetown University called on both the university and Maryland Jesuits to do more to promote reconciliation after the horrors of slavery, asking to create a charitable foundation.
The descendants proposed a $1 billion foundation and announced that they had raised $115,000 in seed money, an amount equivalent to the 1838 sales price for the 272 people sold to pay off a debt. That amount is equivalent to about $3 million in today's dollars.
Last week, Georgetown's president announced that it would apologize for the university's role in the slave trade, give an admissions preference to descendants of the 272 slaves, name two buildings in honor of those enslaved people and create a memorial. Georgetown was responding to a report from a group of faculty members, staff, students and alumni that examined the university's historical ties to slavery.
There is so much about slavery that people either do not understand or choose to ignore.
First of all, most of the original slaves came from the Caribbean, not Africa. Secondly, initially, it was an accepted practice which rightly so over time became a wrong. By the mid 1800's it began to be abolished; again, rightly so
All these hand wringers thinking they are showing a "kind heart" by throwing money at it today are thinking they can pay away their guilt. Tell me, how much money is enough to say, o.k. We're good here now, right? It'll never happen. There's a sucker born every minute. There are many people who don't even know what slavery is or was trying to capitalize on it yet today because, well, money solves everything, Eyn'a? Just ask Sean's buddy Hugo and family
With the risk of swerving off political, the underlying objective of all of these initiatives, whether it be the global warming crowd, the reparations crowd, and numerous others is simply to redistribute wealth from one group to another. The $1.0 billion foundation is plain evidence of that. Why not $10 billion? Why not $100 billion? And who decides? Of course this is unlike actual civil litigation where actual damages, the rules of evidence and the rule of law are supposed to be the determining factor as arbitrated by a theoretically impartial judge or jury. (I often worry about the latter and it's exactly why ALL bank docs compel the borrower to waive a jury right.)
But how do we determine how much 'I' damaged the environment last week and who exactly do I pay? Similarly, is 'my' application to GTown denied because a less qualified 10th generation decedent of slaves is reserved an automatic space? Or is my tuition to said institution bumped up $5,000 so I can pay for the sins of 200 years ago? Were they my sins? Best I can figure it my grandfather had a grade school education and worked at Milwaukee Drop Forge. And I know he didn't own any slaves.
Quote from: jsglow on September 10, 2016, 08:14:33 AM
With the risk of swerving off political, the underlying objective of all of these initiatives, whether it be the global warming crowd, the reparations crowd, and numerous others is simply to redistribute wealth from one group to another. The $1.0 billion foundation is plain evidence of that. Why not $10 billion? Why not $100 billion? And who decides? Of course this is unlike actual civil litigation where actual damages, the rules of evidence and the rule of law are supposed to be the determining factor as arbitrated by a theoretically impartial judge or jury. (I often worry about the latter and it's exactly why ALL bank docs compel the borrower to waive a jury right.)
Did you read the article? It would be a charity accepting donations from individuals and organizations. There aren't proposing any law that I am aware of that would force anyone to contribute and isn't calling for tax money to be used for reparations or anything like that.
Quote from: jsglow on September 10, 2016, 08:14:33 AM
But how do we determine how much 'I' damaged the environment last week and who exactly do I pay? Similarly, is 'my' application to GTown denied because a less qualified 10th generation decedent of slaves is reserved an automatic space? Or is my tuition to said institution bumped up $5,000 so I can pay for the sins of 200 years ago? Were they my sins? Best I can figure it my grandfather had a grade school education and worked at Milwaukee Drop Forge. And I know he didn't own any slaves.
Yes. Someone should create a foundation for the oppressed white man.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on September 10, 2016, 09:28:17 AM
Did you read the article? It would be a charity accepting donations from individuals and organizations. There aren't proposing any law that I am aware of that would force anyone to contribute and isn't calling for tax money to be used for reparations or anything like that.
From the article
He said the specifics of the foundation's goals should come in partnership with the university and the Jesuits. Another lead organizer, Richard Cellini, said they hope the $1 billion that it their goal would be raised from 10 to 15 institutions that benefited from long ties to slavery, and that ideally the money would be jointly managed and directed by Georgetown, the Jesuits and descendants.It's a shakedown operation with Georgetown's endowment as the primary target.
Quote from: Jesse Livermore on September 10, 2016, 10:21:37 AM
From the article
He said the specifics of the foundation's goals should come in partnership with the university and the Jesuits. Another lead organizer, Richard Cellini, said they hope the $1 billion that it their goal would be raised from 10 to 15 institutions that benefited from long ties to slavery, and that ideally the money would be jointly managed and directed by Georgetown, the Jesuits and descendants.
It's a shakedown operation with Georgetown's endowment as the primary target.
Uh...but how are they going to accomplish it? Just because they want Georgetown to participate, doesn't mean they can or will.
Like all this left-wing PC crap gets started ... Student protests, left-wing professor boycotts.
Administrators cower in fear and constantly cave to the demands of these groups.
Give it time, it will happen.
To answer your question Sultan, yes I read the article.
Quote from: jsglow on September 10, 2016, 08:14:33 AM
But how do we determine how much 'I' damaged the environment last week and who exactly do I pay? Similarly, is 'my' application to GTown denied because a less qualified 10th generation decedent of slaves is reserved an automatic space? Or is my tuition to said institution bumped up $5,000 so I can pay for the sins of 200 years ago? Were they my sins? Best I can figure it my grandfather had a grade school education and worked at Milwaukee Drop Forge. And I know he didn't own any slaves.
1. Nothing entitles you entry to Georgetown other than the whims of the university's admissions department. And if Georgetown wishes to charge an extra $5,000 for tuition to pay for the sins of 200 years ago, you're free to either pay it or choose another institution.
2. I'm quite certain that you're not utterly blind to how you and your ancestors (including ol' pop pop) benefited from slave labor and oppression of black people, even without having owned slaves.
Quote from: Jesse Livermore on September 10, 2016, 11:50:14 AM
Like all this left-wing PC crap gets started ... Student protests, left-wing professor boycotts.
Administrators cower in fear and constantly cave to the demands of these groups.
Give it time, it will happen.
Well that's their issue then.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 10, 2016, 02:33:36 PM
2. I'm quite certain that you're not utterly blind to how you and your ancestors (including ol' pop pop) benefited from slave labor and oppression of black people, even without having owned slaves.
I wasn't alive 200 years ago to make that decision. I'm not going to pay amends to people who also were not alive then.
Quote from: #UnleashWally on September 10, 2016, 02:47:31 PM
I wasn't alive 200 years ago to make that decision. I'm not going to pay amends to people who also were not alive then.
I agree with you. I don't think reparations are the answer nor would they be appropriate.
But comparing the situation that descendants of slaves have faced with the situation that descendants of a poor white laborer from Milwaukee has faced is indicative of the problem. The fact is that society's institutions made it easier for Glow's family to work themselves to where they are now compared to the descendants of a slave.
Acknowledging that as a society would be important.
Quote from: #UnleashWally on September 10, 2016, 02:47:31 PM
I wasn't alive 200 years ago to make that decision. I'm not going to pay amends to people who also were not alive then.
Georgetown, as a private institution, voluntarily offering preferential admission to the descendants of slaves isn't exactly the same as you paying amends, is it?
Individual reparations to descendants of slaves is a terrible solution, MO, but recognizing that this hasn't been an equal "land of opportunity" for all and taking reasonable steps to help people out of a hole that was dug for them doesn't seem such a terrible thing.
And if that means a handful of upper middle class white kids from the suburbs end up at GW instead of Georgetown, I can live with that.
p.s. Institutional racism in this country isn't just a "200 years ago" thing.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 10, 2016, 05:16:35 PM
Georgetown, as a private institution, voluntarily offering preferential admission to the descendants of slaves isn't exactly the same as you paying amends, is it?
Individual reparations to descendants of slaves is a terrible solution, MO, but recognizing that this hasn't been an equal "land of opportunity" for all and taking reasonable steps to help people out of a hole that was dug for them doesn't seem such a terrible thing.
And if that means a handful of upper middle class white kids from the suburbs end up at GW instead of Georgetown, I can live with that.
p.s. Institutional racism in this country isn't just a "200 years ago" thing.
"Gif of some celebrity clapping whilst smiling"
Private institution makes a choice based on what they feel is best for them. Those folks disagreeing with it, have weirdly long track records of rallying for those in favoring of private institutions doing what they think is best.
For the record this has nothing to do with Federal aid, Pell grants, or federal student loans. This is simply a private institution doing what they feel is right, but hey, weird, some dude who read zerohedge and breitbart is shockingly opposed to it.
Georgetown may do as they wish. However, are they planning on offering free admission to the descendants of Union soldiers who fought and\or died to free the slaves? Those that put their lives on the line?
Quote from: TilTuesday on September 11, 2016, 02:32:01 PM
Georgetown may do as they wish. However, are they planning on offering free admission to the descendants of Union soldiers who fought and\or died to free the slaves? Those that put their lives on the line?
Jams, how's the family? Idaho bound yet?
Quote from: TilTuesday on September 11, 2016, 02:32:01 PM
Georgetown may do as they wish. However, are they planning on offering free admission to the descendants of Union soldiers who fought and\or died to free the slaves? Those that put their lives on the line?
One of the best quotes of the year... bully bully(not to be confused with wooly bully though hey
Quote from: rocket surgeon on September 11, 2016, 05:20:17 PM
One of the best quotes of the year... bully bully(not to be confused with wooly bully though hey
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on September 11, 2016, 05:24:27 PM
Why? It completely misses the entire point of what Georgetown is doing and why.
How does it miss the point? If not for the Union soldiers, the slaves would have been enslaved for even longer. so, I would think the descendants of the slaves would/should be forever grateful for the selflessness of the soldiers heirs and share their good fortunes
Quote from: TilTuesday on September 11, 2016, 02:32:01 PM
Georgetown may do as they wish. However, are they planning on offering free admission to the descendants of Union soldiers who fought and\or died to free the slaves? Those that put their lives on the line?
TilTuesday? Hush, hush.
All I've heard that Georgetown is officially doing is offering preferential admission to the descendants -- just treating them as legacies. Has it been announced yet that they're actually doing anything else? Sure, they might respond to the request for foundation (and potential pressure to do so), but I haven't heard yet that they will. I think they are being pretty deliberate in this, and that if they were inclined to offer financial assistance that would have been part of the announcement they made a week or two ago.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on September 11, 2016, 05:43:35 PM
How does it miss the point? If not for the Union soldiers, the slaves would have been enslaved for even longer. so, I would think the descendants of the slaves would/should be forever grateful for the selflessness of the soldiers heirs and share their good fortunes
SO...WHAT....
It is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on September 11, 2016, 05:43:35 PM
How does it miss the point? If not for the Union soldiers, the slaves would have been enslaved for even longer. so, I would think the descendants of the slaves would/should be forever grateful for the selflessness of the soldiers heirs and share their good fortunes
Just for one day, I'd like to travel in your orbit to see how life is not knowing a damn thing outside of the sand surrounding one's ears.
Quote from: TilTuesday on September 12, 2016, 10:46:46 AM
Voices Carry
I'm pretty sure Aimee Mann would fist fight you over your 'descendants of union soldiers' stance though.
Quote from: Golden Avalanche on September 12, 2016, 10:01:55 AM
Just for one day, I'd like to travel in your orbit to see how life is not knowing a damn thing outside of the sand surrounding one's ears.
good one-feel better now? lashing out at those who don't always espouse your view of the world ain't a good sign of a very stable individual. try exercising some self-control sometime; your therapist would be impressed
Quote from: Golden Avalanche on September 12, 2016, 10:01:55 AM
Just for one day, I'd like to travel in your orbit to see how life is not knowing a damn thing outside of the sand surrounding one's ears.
Altogether a more pleasant view than the colonscape you inhabit
anyone can play the name game but it doesn't advance anyone's ideas.
(http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Boy-That-Escalated-Quickly-Anchorman.gif)
Quote from: rocket surgeon on September 12, 2016, 02:21:27 PM
good one-feel better now? lashing out at those who don't always espouse your view of the world ain't a good sign of a very stable individual. try exercising some self-control sometime; your therapist would be impressed
When it comes to you, I never feel better. You insert irrelevant and ignorant viewpoints in every discussion to give voice to your aggrieved status at the top of the pyramid.
Quote from: elephantraker on September 12, 2016, 04:30:12 PM
Altogether a more pleasant view than the colonscape you inhabit
anyone can play the name game but it doesn't advance anyone's ideas.
Weird, I don't even know who you are. Not sure I've ever interacted with you. Have no time for losers! Only like winners! I win! I win so much people get jealous of my winning! You don't how that feels. Sad!
Quote from: Pakuni on September 12, 2016, 04:44:45 PM
(http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Boy-That-Escalated-Quickly-Anchorman.gif)
+1
Quote from: StillAWarrior on September 11, 2016, 06:33:02 PM
All I've heard that Georgetown is officially doing is offering preferential admission to the descendants -- just treating them as legacies. Has it been announced yet that they're actually doing anything else? Sure, they might respond to the request for foundation (and potential pressure to do so), but I haven't heard yet that they will. I think they are being pretty deliberate in this, and that if they were inclined to offer financial assistance that would have been part of the announcement they made a week or two ago.
The plan is for preferential admission and full cost of attendance by way of special endowed scholarships, according to one professor. Seems to me that the school should also look to the descendants of those that risked their lives so their fellow man could be free, and ultimately have the ability to attend a university like Georgetown. Take the free admission aspect out of it for a moment, perhaps merely the same preferential admission criteria to the young men and women of union soldiers is in order, too.
Union soldiers across the river from Georgetown University, 1861
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Georgetown_1861.jpg/800px-Georgetown_1861.jpg)
Quote from: Golden Avalanche on September 10, 2016, 10:15:53 PM
"Gif of some celebrity clapping whilst smiling"
Well there you have it! It ain't legit until a kardashian or a decraprio endorses it, Eyn'a?
Quote from: TilTuesday on September 14, 2016, 12:40:01 AM
The plan is for preferential admission and full cost of attendance by way of special endowed scholarships, according to one professor. Seems to me that the school should also look to the descendants of those that risked their lives so their fellow man could be free, and ultimately have the ability to attend a university like Georgetown. Take the free admission aspect out of it for a moment, perhaps merely the same preferential admission criteria to the young men and women of union soldiers is in order, too.
Chicos, you once again have done what you always do. Shift the goalposts.
First, your "idea" is completely irrelevant to the issue. Georgetown was found to profit from slavery by accepting slaves as a donation and profiting from them. This has nothing to do with the Civil War or union soldiers.
Second, if someone wants to create an endowed scholarship so that the decendants of union soldiers can attend the school, they are free to do so. In fact a number already exist.
http://www.suvcw.org/?page_id=807
https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/scholarships/grand-armyofthe-republic-living-memorial-scholarship
https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarships/scholarships-by-type/veteran-scholarships/daughters-of-union-veterans-of-the-civil-war/
Today I learned that serving in the military, often as a volunteer and always for pay and pension, is comparable to slavery.
Quote from: TilTuesday on September 14, 2016, 12:40:01 AM
The plan is for preferential admission and full cost of attendance by way of special endowed scholarships, according to one professor.
What professor? Where has this been reported? I haven't seen it. It would not particularly surprise me if this -- or something similar -- ultimately happens, but I don't understand why Georgetown would have very publicly announced that they were going to give admissions preferences and change the name of a couple buildings, but keep this much bigger benefit a secret.
Obviously, one of the challenges of offering financial aid to a group of "descendants" is the exponential growth of that group.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on September 14, 2016, 09:14:27 AM
What professor? Where has this been reported? I haven't seen it. It would not particularly surprise me if this -- or something similar -- ultimately happens, but I don't understand why Georgetown would have very publicly announced that they were going to give admissions preferences and change the name of a couple buildings, but keep this much bigger benefit a secret.
Obviously, one of the challenges of offering financial aid to a group of "descendants" is the exponential growth of that group.
I believe it was David Collins, SJ who said (perhaps his own personal opinion) that we need to do more, endow scholarships for these people. Let me circle back and find it.
It could have also been Professor Brown (Dorothy or Debra?), who is a Georgetown almunus and professor at Emory (I think), who demanded that what Georgetown was not nearly enough. Basically demanded a lot of money for each person, scholarships, and more. She was on CNN and extremely vocal about it.
If it was the latter, than please accept my apologies. If it was Collins, I'm sure he was saying if it was up to him we would do more and not an official Georgetown policy.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 14, 2016, 08:21:18 AM
Today I learned that serving in the military, often as a volunteer and always for pay and pension, is comparable to slavery.
If that is what you learned, perfectly fine. I learned that an institution was trying in some fashion to make amends for something they felt needed to be amended. Of course serving in the military in the 1860's wasn't exactly an opportunity to be All You Can Be.
Slavery is a blight on our country's history. My suspicion is that as guilty as some people feel about things from hundreds of years ago, it will continue to go on and on. Then, if we believe it to be the blight that it is and in need of continual repairs, we should acknowledge the bravery it took to end it. People lost their lives, their families, their fortunes in the battle for freedom. They, too, sacrificed ultimately for people they didn't even know. It would complete the circle, help with healing, to acknowledge those sacrifices as well. Georgetown would no have existed, some claim, if not for selling slaves. There are other historians that will tell you Georgetown would not have existed if it were not for the North's victory in the Civil War, too.
Quote from: TilTuesday on September 15, 2016, 09:11:21 AM
If that is what you learned, perfectly fine. I learned that an institution was trying in some fashion to make amends for something they felt needed to be amended. Of course serving in the military in the 1860's wasn't exactly an opportunity to be All You Can Be.
Slavery is a blight on our country's history. My suspicion is that as guilty as some people feel about things from hundreds of years ago, it will continue to go on and on. Then, if we believe it to be the blight that it is and in need of continual repairs, we should acknowledge the bravery it took to end it. People lost their lives, their families, their fortunes in the battle for freedom. They, too, sacrificed ultimately for people they didn't even know. It would complete the circle, help with healing, to acknowledge those sacrifices as well. Georgetown would no have existed, some claim, if not for selling slaves. There are other historians that will tell you Georgetown would not have existed if it were not for the North's victory in the Civil War, too.
You utterly miss the point.
Let's go over this slowly:
1. Georgetown's actions have nothing to do with the Civil War. They have to do with the university's engagement with (and profit from) the slave trade nearly 25 years before the Civil War.
2. The vast majority of Union soldiers were
volunteers who not only were paid for their service, but also received pensions that were handed down to their families. As recently as 2013, the government was still paying Civil War pensions. Your suggestion is that we compensate the descendants of people who have
already been compensated.
3. The notion that we need to acknowledge the bravery that was needed to fight the Civil War is laughable. This country has constantly acknowledged that bravery not only monetarily (via pay, pensions, scholarships), but statues, memorials, monuments, national historic sites, etc., etc. These soldiers have hardly gone unrecognized and their sacrifices were and continue to be acknowledged in many, many ways.
Could you direct me to some of these historians who say the future of Georgetown University was dependent on the outcome of the Civil War?
Quote from: Pakuni on September 15, 2016, 09:31:24 AM
You utterly miss the point.
Let's go over this slowly:
1. Georgetown's actions have nothing to do with the Civil War. They have to do with the university's engagement with (and profit from) the slave trade nearly 25 years before the Civil War.
2. The vast majority of Union soldiers were volunteers who not only were paid for their service, but also received pensions that were handed down to their families. As recently as 2013, the government was still paying Civil War pensions. Your suggestion is that we compensate the descendants of people who have already been compensated.
3. The notion that we need to acknowledge the bravery that was needed to fight the Civil War is laughable. This country has constantly acknowledged that bravery not only monetarily (via pay, pensions, scholarships), but statues, memorials, monuments, national historic sites, etc., etc. These soldiers have hardly gone unrecognized and their sacrifices were and continue to be acknowledged in many, many ways.
Could you direct me to some of these historians who say the future of Georgetown University was dependent on the outcome of the Civil War?
Well said.
(https://gamesetgif.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/serena_champaceao.gif)
Quote from: TilTuesday on September 15, 2016, 09:11:21 AM
If that is what you learned, perfectly fine. I learned that an institution was trying in some fashion to make amends for something they felt needed to be amended. Of course serving in the military in the 1860's wasn't exactly an opportunity to be All You Can Be.
Slavery is a blight on our country's history. My suspicion is that as guilty as some people feel about things from hundreds of years ago, it will continue to go on and on. Then, if we believe it to be the blight that it is and in need of continual repairs, we should acknowledge the bravery it took to end it. People lost their lives, their families, their fortunes in the battle for freedom. They, too, sacrificed ultimately for people they didn't even know. It would complete the circle, help with healing, to acknowledge those sacrifices as well. Georgetown would no have existed, some claim, if not for selling slaves. There are other historians that will tell you Georgetown would not have existed if it were not for the North's victory in the Civil War, too.
Go start a scholarship for descendants of Union soldiers. Or donate to one that already exists. No one is preventing you from doing that.
Maybe 'TilTuesday' was actually a guess on how long he could go without being banned.
Quote from: TilTuesday on September 15, 2016, 09:05:23 AM
I believe it was David Collins, SJ who said (perhaps his own personal opinion) that we need to do more, endow scholarships for these people. Let me circle back and find it.
It could have also been Professor Brown (Dorothy or Debra?), who is a Georgetown almunus and professor at Emory (I think), who demanded that what Georgetown was not nearly enough. Basically demanded a lot of money for each person, scholarships, and more. She was on CNN and extremely vocal about it.
If it was the latter, than please accept my apologies. If it was Collins, I'm sure he was saying if it was up to him we would do more and not an official Georgetown policy.
Thanks. I think we can agree that even if it is Collins, there is a
huge difference between his personal opinion and saying that the "plan is for preferential admission and full cost of attendance by way of special endowed scholarships."
I'll be interested to see what you saw once you have a chance to circle back around to it. Just a couple weeks ago, Collins -- the chair of the Georgetown working group addressing this very issue -- wrote an Op-Ed in the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/opinion/georgetown-university-learning-from-its-sins.html) referring to the pending release of the recommendations of the work group that
he was leading. In light of the fact that the Collins-led work group's "recommendations for how best to acknowledge and recognize the school's historical relationship with slavery" did not include any mention of endowed scholarships, it would seem odd to me that he would be advocating for them in other areas. It would be a bit of a PR cluster**** if person leading the group responsible for making recommendations on how to address the situation is actually voicing a opinion different than that of the committee he leads. But, I've seen lots of organizations walk right in to PR cluster****s. That said, the report the committee issued suggests there could be additional recommendations in the future. Perhaps there is a longer term plan and scholarships will be recommended at a later date. I suppose I can conceive or reasons to handle it this way.
And if it is not Collins, but is another Georgetown professor advocating for endowed scholarships...well I suspect you can find professors on every college campus in America who would advocate for endowed scholarships for one aggrieved group or another. This also would be far, far different than your original claim that there is a "plan is for...full cost of attendance by way of special endowed scholarships."
At present, I've seen nothing at all that leads me to believe that such a plan exists. In fact, the things I've read and seen seem to suggest that there is no such plan. But that doesn't mean there isn't such a plan or won't be one in the future.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on September 15, 2016, 10:34:00 AM
I'll be interested to see what you saw once you have a chance to circle back around to it.
You may see this but it will be under some sort of new screen name
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=52289.msg859605#new (http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=52289.msg859605#new)
Quote from: Frenns Liquor Depot on September 15, 2016, 11:18:19 AM
You may see this but it will be under some sort of new screen name
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=52289.msg859605#new (http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=52289.msg859605#new)
Truth be told, I wasn't exactly holding my breath.